INTRODUCTION

There are many process applications of gas/liquid direct

contact equipment where the main objective is transfer of
heat. The preference for this type of equipment is due to its
rather simple design (leading to reduced capital expenses)
and ease of operation since heat transfer surfaces (and their
usual corrosion and fouling problems) are absent, thus
significantly reducing operating and maintenance expenses.
Considerable work has been carried out on packed bed
type direct-contact condensers (e.g. Fair, [1]). However,
well-established methods for predicting heat transfer rates in
such devices are still unavailable. The situation is worse in
the case of structured packed beds, which are very attractive
for a variety of applications. Indeed, there is a lack of heat
transfer data in the open literature, helpful in clarifying some
key issues involved and in providing guidance for design
calculations [2], [3].
A complication frequently arising in studies of direct-
contact heat transfer is due to the simultaneous transfer of
mass which may be in the same direction as the main heat
flow or may proceed opposite to it, depending on process
conditions. Therefore, experimental determination of overall
heat transfer coefficients over the entire packed column may
mask such effects and may not help improve our
understanding of this process. In one of the few available
direct-contact heat transfer studies on structured packings,
Spigel et al [4] obtained data with air/water and an air/oil
system. Overall transfer units and overall heat transfer
coefficients U were reported for packed columns 0.63 and
0.675 m high. Correlations were also proposed for
predicting heat transfer rates for structured packings. For the
case of sub-cooled water brought in contact with hot air,
they reported that U varied with the gas Reynolds number to
a power 0.8. Huang and Fair [5] have obtained a
considerable amount of data on the air/water system in
various types of packed columns but not in structured
packings. Bontozoglou and Karabelas [6] carried out
experiments with the same structured packing employed in
this work utilizing steam, with a small percentage of CO
2
,
flowing upwards in a column where sub-cooled water was
fed at the top. They reported that the condensation
coefficient was enhanced at the lower levels of the column
(close to the steam feeding point), which was attributed to
the fact that during the early stages of gas/liquid contact, the
gas (mainly saturated steam) is poor in non-condensables.
However, as the distance from the feeding point increases
(and so does the gas/liquid contact time) more steam
condenses on the gas/liquid interface and the mixture
becomes richer in non-condensables which retard
condensation.
The scope of this work is to collect reliable
experimental data in a pilot scale column with structured
packing that would enrich the literature and would offer the
opportunity to improve understanding of the direct-contact
process along the column. The common air/water system is
employed which (in addition to its practical usefulness)
allows comparison with a few relevant literature studies.

DIRECT CONTACT AIR-WATER HEAT TRANSFER
IN A COLUMN WITH STRUCTURED PACKING

Sofoklis Kypritzis and Anastasios J. Karabelas

Department of Chemical Engineering and Chemical Process Engineering Research Institute,
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Univ. Box 455, GR 540 06 Thessaloniki, Greece
Tel: (+30) 31 996201, Fax: (+30) 31 996209, E-mail: karabaj@cperi.certh.gr






ABSTRACT
This paper deals with the process of direct contact heat transfer between hot (relatively dry) air and sub-cooled
water flowing counter-currently in a column filled with structured packing (Sulzer, Melapak 250.Y). The main
objective is to collect reliable experimental data for a type of process equipment (structured packed column)
inadequately studied so far. The range of flow parameters studied was as follows: Air flux between 2.4 and 6.2
tn/hm
2
and Reynolds number between 820 and 2150; water flux between 7.2 and 17.2 tn/hm
2
and Reynolds
number between 10.4 and 25. The pressure varied from atmospheric to 1 bar gauge. A fully instrumented pilot
scale unit was employed in the tests with a stainless steel column 70cm long and 15cm i.d. A significant amount
of new data has been collected by measuring the local temperature at various levels of the column.
Sensible heat exchange between air and water in the column takes place simultaneously with mass transfer.
Interpretation of data shows that the process strongly depends on the air flow rate, as expected. The influence of
liquid rate is noticed only in the upper section of the column. There is evidence that a very significant amount of
heat, exchanged between the two streams is due to latent heat (mass) transfer. The bottom part of the packed bed
operates essentially as an air cooling section promoting saturation of the supplied hot air. Under some conditions,
both air humidification and subsequent de-humidification may take place in the bottom section i.e. within a rather
short packing segment. Above this section, the device seems to operate as an ordinary direct contact heater of the
liquid phase. For the middle and upper sections, common correlations provide predictions in rough agreement
with measured heat transfer coefficients.

Session Thermalhydraulics: Fluidized
and Packed Beds 1
1
EXPERIMENTAL EQUIPMENT AND PROCEDURE
The experimental system is shown in Figure 1. The
condenser is a 1,05 m long, 0,15 m I.D. column made of
stainless steel 316. A hot well, equipped with a magnetic
floater forms the bottom of the column. The liquid outlet
valves are electrically actuated through the floater in order to
prevent the passage of air in the drainage pipe. The column
is filled with Mellapak 250.Y structured packing marketed
by Sulzer, which appears to be one of the packing types
favored for direct contact applications. Characteristics of
this packing are listed in Table 1.
Tap water is demineralized and delivered to a spray
manifold at the top of the column. The water flow rate is
controlled by a PID controller and a flowmeter which
electronically actuate a Badger control valve. Dry air is
provided by the Laboratory compressor facility. Heating
takes place in a special vessel equipped with electrical
resistances (3,5 KW). Pressure gauges and flowmeters are
installed to monitor air flow conditions. The air heating
vessel, piping and packed column are thermally insulated to
avoid heat losses and achieve adiabatic conditions. A
temperature controller is installed at the outlet of the air
heating vessel to maintain constant temperature (120
o
C)
Temperatures are monitored with K-type thermocouples
calibrated to 0,2
o
C. Thermocouples are installed in the well
(TI1), at the cold water inlet (TI7) and at the air outlet (TI8).
Five thermocouples are embedded in the packing (identified
by TI2, TI3, TI4, TI5, TI6, in Figure 1) located at a distance
80, 120, 160, 375, 585 mm (respectively) from the bottom of
the packing. The thermocouple tips are positioned close to
the centerline of the column, in contact with the packing to
provide the temperature of the local liquid film.
Temperatures are indicated on a central panel and are also
recorded by a data acquisition system for later processing.
The range of conditions tested is as follows:
Air flux between 2.4 and 6.2 tn/hm
2
and Reynolds
number (based on the effective velocity of air) between 820
and 2150.





















FIG. 1: The experimental device




Water flux between 7.2 and 17.2 tn/hm
2
and Reynolds
number (based on superficial water velocity) between 10.4
and 25.
Pressure from atmospheric up to 1 bar gauge.
To facilitate data interpretation the packed bed is considered
to be comprised of five sections henceforth to be referred to
as top, upper, middle, lower and saturation sections, as
indicated in Figure 1. The locations of thermocouples TI3,
TI4, TI5 and TI6 serve as the boundaries of these sections.
Thermocouple TI2 provides an estimate of saturation section
temperature.

RESULTS
Water Temperature Profiles
Typical water temperature profiles measured in these tests
are plotted in Figures 2,3 and 4. These data show that water
is heated (as expected) while flowing through the top, upper,
middle and lower sections. A modest water heating is
achieved in the three top sections, possibly due to sensible
heat transfer together with some humidity (mass) transport
from the saturated warm air to the falling water films, under
conditions of forced convection. A rather sharp temperature
increase takes place (up to a maximum) within the lower
section. At first look, it is doubtful whether convective heat
transfer is the main mechanism responsible for this
significant heating. Of greater interest is the reduction of
water temperature within the so-called saturation section.
This is apparently caused by the humidification of the
incoming hot dry air, effected through evaporation and
leading to water cooling. This explanation is supported by
the observation that thermocouples TI1 and TI2
systematically measure water temperatures lower than TI3,
as shown in figures 2,3,4. In summary, it appears that hot air





























Cold water inlet
Cold & humid air outlet to
Atmosphere.
Hot & dry air inlet,
Heated water outlet
to drain
TIC
TI8
FIC
PI
FI
PI
LC
TI7
Tap water inlet
Air heating
device
Pressurized dry
air at 8 bar abs
PI
TI2
TI3
TI4
TI5
TI6
TI1
700mm
Lower section
Middle section
Saturation
section
Upper section
Top section
Water
demineralization

2001, ExHFT-5, Thessaloniki, Greece
2
10
15
20
25
30
35
0 200 400 600 800
Distance from the bottom of the packing (mm)
W
a
t
e
r

t
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

(


C
)
P = 2.0 bar, Re(g) = 1320
P = 1.5 bar, Re(g) = 1340
P = 1.25 bar, Re(g) = 1280
P = 1.0 bar, Re(g) = 1380
at well
10
15
20
25
30
0 200 400 600 800
Distance from the bottomof the packing (mm)
W
a
t
e
r

t
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

(


C
)
P = 1.5 bar, Re(g) = 2150
P = 1.25 bar, Re(g) = 2100
P = 1.0 bar, Re(g) = 2030
at well
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0 200 400 600 800
Distance from the bott om of the packed bed (mm)
W
a
t
e
r

t
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

(


C
)
T(wtr) P = 2.0 bar, Re(g) = 1600
T(air) P = 2.0 bar, Re(g) = 1600
T(wtr), P = 1.25 bar, Re(g) = 1590
T(air), P = 1.25 bar, Re(g) = 1590
at well
humidification of the saturated up-coming air by the colder
falling water films which (aided by sensible air/water
convective heat transfer) leads to increasing water
temperature.


















FIG. 2: Typical water temperature profiles at constant water
flux (12.2 tn/hm
2
) and Re
gas
~constant








FIG. 3: Typical water temperature profiles at constant water
flux (12.2 tn/hm
2
) and Re
gas
~constant
















FIG. 4: Typical water and air temperature profiles at constant water
flux (12.2 tn/hm
2
) and Re
gas
~constant
Air Temperature Profiles
To further interpret the data, it is essential to determine
the prevailing air temperature profiles in the column under
various conditions. In Figure 4 calculated air temperatures
are included which were obtained, assuming adiabatic
column operation and saturated gaseous phase, via the
energy balance for water:

Q = Lc
wtr
(T
out,wtr
T
in,wtr
) (1)

and for humid air:

Q = G[c
air
(T
in,air
T
out, air
) + (H
in
H
out
) ] (2)

In equations [1] and [2] all physical quantities are known;
L, T
out, wtr
, T
in, wtr
, G and T
out, air
are measured and H
out
can
be obtained via a psychrometric chart. Equation [2] may be
rearranged to solve for T
in, air
for the corresponding H
in
. This
procedure is repeated sequentially for all sections (except
the saturation section), starting from the top section where
boundary conditions (T
out, air
and T
in, wtr
) are obtained from
the corresponding thermocouples (TI8 and TI7).

Heat Transfer Coefficients
Figures 5 through 10 depict calculated overall heat
transfer coefficients versus gas Reynolds number for upper,
middle and bottom sections. Various water fluxes in a range
7.2 to 17.22 m
3
/m
2
h are employed, for air pressure 2.0 and
1.5 bar absolute. The overall heat transfer coefficient U, is
obtained via equation [3] since all relevant quantities are
calculated from equations [1] and [2]. In equation [3] the
logarithmic mean temperature difference is approximated by
the arithmetic mean difference, without introducing a
significant error:
( ) ( )
m lm
T azA
Q
T azA
Q
U

=
[3]
Neither enhancement of interface compared to geometric
packing area, as suggested by Henriques de Brito et al [7],
nor reduction due to liquid maldistribution effects is
considered here in order to specify the effective area A for
heat/mass transfer between humid air and water. Thus, the
total effective interface area in the computations was
assumed to be constant and equal to the nominal area of the
packing (indicated in Table 1).
Figures 5 to 10 show that the heat transfer coefficient (for
all three column sections considered) is strongly affected by
gas Reynolds number, as expected. It is also observed that,
for the lower and middle sections (Figures 6, 7, 9, 10), the
heat transfer coefficient U is almost independent of the
liquid flow rate. Indeed, a relatively small variation of U for
various liquid rates (for a fixed Re
G
) is not systematic and
appears to be within the experimental error ( 15%). This
behaviour of U may be attributed to a controlling resistance
to heat transfer residing at the gas side of the interface.
Furthermore, the insignificant effect of liquid rate in these
sections suggests that the condition of the falling liquid films
does not influence the transfer rates at the gas side.
Upon inspection of Figures 7 and 10 (for the lower
section), corresponding to absolute pressure 2 and 1.5 bar
respectively, one can make the following observations:

Session Thermalhydraulics: Fluidized
and Packed Beds 1
3
The magnitude of U is much greater than that for the
other two sections.
Figure 10 for P=1.5 bar depicts (at high Re
G
) a
decreasing U with increasing Re
G
.
The latter trend appears to be physically impossible
and may result from violation of assumptions involved in
determining the transfer coefficient U; i.e., that only
sensible heat transfer and condensation from a saturated
gas stream take place in this section. In reality, however,
it is possible that (at sufficiently high air velocities) the
packing section designated as saturation section










FIG. 5: Heat transfer coefficient vs Re of the upper section of the
column (P = 2.0 bar abs)










FIG. 6: Heat transfer coefficient vs Re of the middle section of the
column (P = 2.0 bar abs)










FIG. 7: Heat transfer coefficient vs Re of the lower section of the
column (P = 2.0 bar abs)


(between TI2 and TI3, Figure 1) may not be thick
enough, and the air residence time there may be too short,
to attain saturation. Thus, air saturation may be completed
in the next section (designated as lower in Figure 1).
Furthermore, it is not unlikely that in the same (lower)
section water evaporation (air humidification) may take
place first followed by condensation. Under these
conditions, Equ (2) would underestimate Q for that section
leading to reduced U values. Apparently, with increasing
Re
G
, U would keep decreasing as shown in Figure 10.















FIG. 8: Heat transfer coefficient vs Reynolds of the upper section
of the column (P = 1.5 bar abs)
















FIG. 9: Heat transfer coefficient vs Re of the middle section of the
column (P = 1.5 bar abs)














FIG. 10: Heat transfer coefficient vs Re of the lower section of the
column (P = 1.5 bar abs)


0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Gas Reynolds number
H
e
a
t

t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r

c
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t

(
W
/
m
x
m
K
17,22
15,58
13,93
12,22
10,6
8,9
7,2
theoretical
prediction

0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Gas Reynolds number
H
e
a
t

t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r

c
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t

(
W
/
m
x
m
17,22
15,58
13,93
12,22
10,6
8,9
7,2
thoretical prediction

0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Gas Reynolds number
H
e
a
t

t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r

c
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t

(
W
/
m
x
m
K
)
17,22
15,58
13,93
12,22
10,6
8,9
7,2

0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
Gas Reynolds number
H
e
a
t

t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r

c
o
e
f
f
i
c
ie
n
t

(
W
/
m
x
m
K
)
17,22
15,58
13,93
12,22
10,6
8,9
7,2

0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Gas Reynolds number
H
e
a
t

t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r

c
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t

(
W
/
m
x
m
K
)
17,22
15,58
13,93
12,22
10,6
8,9
7,2

0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Gas Reynolds number
H
e
a
t

t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r

c
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t

(
W
/
m
x
m
K
17,22
15,58
13,93
12,22
10,6
8,9
7,2

2001, ExHFT-5, Thessaloniki, Greece
4
The results in Figure 7 (P=2.0 bar absolute) show that
(unlike those in Figure 10) U increases monotonically with
Re
G
. In line with the above explanation, this may be
attributed to the higher air pressure and the relatively smaller
quantity of vapour required for saturation, which may then
be completed within the saturation section. Consequently,
Equation (2) would be satisfied in the next (lower) section
with the expected U versus Re
G
variation.
The high U values in the lower section (e.g. Figure 7) are
difficult to explain. One may attribute this to supersaturation
of air entering that section, which would lead to an amount
of latent heat released greater than that accounted for in the
procedure used for determining U (equ 1 and 2).
Figures 5 and 8 as well as Figures 11 and 12 show that
whereas for the lower and middle sections U is practically
independent of water flow rate, for the upper section U is
roughly inversely proportional to Re
L
. This rather curious
trend of transfer coefficient U is not observed for the first
time in direct-contact experiments. Bontozoglou and
Karabelas [6] studying steam condensation in the same
experimental setup, reported similar trends. Karapantsios et
al [8] obtained experimental data of direct-contact steam
condensation on falling water films, inside a vertical tube, in
the presence of large amounts of non condensable gases; it
was also observed that, by increasing the liquid flow rate,
reduced values of integral heat transfer coefficient were
obtained. They hypothesized that (with increasing liquid
rate) the enhanced liquid waves trapped noncondensable
gases at the interface (or they caused a steam deplection of
the boundary layer at the gas side) promoting a reduction of
the mass transfer coefficient. It is uncertain whether the
above arguments apply to the present system, and this matter
requires more attention in future studies.
In view of the above observations that the resistance to
heat transfer resides at the gas side, an attempt is made to
predict integral heat transfer coefficients U in a section by
employing common correlations. Considering sensible heat
transfer, and latent heat transported to liquid films through
turbulent convective mass transfer, one obtains U as follows:
( ) ( ) ( )

, , , ,
, , , ,
h
T T
H H
K U
H H azAK T T azAh T T azAU
Q Q Q
ave
wtr
ave
air
ave
sat wtr T
ave
sat air T
ave
sat wtr T
ave
sat air T
ave
wtr
ave
air
ave
wtr
ave
air
lat sens
+

=
+ =
+ =

Following Fair & Bravo [9], Schpigel & Meier [10] one may
employ the same type of correlation for estimating transfer
coefficients K and h.
33 . 0 8 . 0
33 . 0 8 . 0
Re 034 . 0
Pr Re 034 . 0
gas gas gas
gas gas gas
Sc Sh
Nu
=
=


Predictions based on this approach are plotted in Figure 8
and 9 for the upper and middle sections where (as already
discussed) the assumptions involved in estimating U may be
better satisfied than in other sections. Predictions are in
rough (order of magnitude) agreement. It is interesting that
the exponent of the Re
G
dependence of U data is closer to
1.0 than to 0.8 employed in the above correlations.















FIG. 11. Heat transfer coefficient vs Re(liq)
(P =2.0 bar abs & Re(g) = 1600)


















FIG. 12: Heat transfer coefficient vs Re(liq)
(P = 1.25 bar abs & Re(g) = 1470)


CONCLUDING REMARKS
The well-known air/water system employed here is
characterized by a relatively large enthalpy of
vaporization.Therefore, if there is a large difference of inlet
temperatures of the two streams, brought into direct contact,
latent heat effects dominate in certain sections of the
column. Moreover, if the incoming air is dry, both
humidification and de-humidification may take take place
within rather short sections of the packing that require
careful attention for data interpretation.
Under the conditions studied here, the liquid flow rate
appears to have no effect on the performance of the
structured packed bed as direct-contact condenser, except at
the top of the column. In intermediate sections, where latent
heat transfer is not excessive, the integral heat transfer
coefficient displays a dependence on Re
G
to a power near
unity. In these sections, common convective mass/heat
transfer correlations lead to acceptable (order of magnitude)
predictions. A rather curious apparent effect (also observed
in previous studies) of decreasing U with increasing liquid
rate, at the top section, requires additional work to be
confirmed and clarified.

(5a)
(5b)
10
100
1000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Liquid Reynolds number
H
e
a
t
t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r

c
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
(
W
/
m
x
m
K
)
upper section middle section lower section
10
100
1000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Reynolds number of liquid
H
e
a
t

t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r

c
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t

(
W
/
m
x
m
K
)
upper section middle section lower section

(4)
Session Thermalhydraulics: Fluidized
and Packed Beds 1
5
SYMBOLS
A: Cross-sectional area of the column [=] m
2

c
wtr
: Specific heat of water [=] J/Kg
o
C
c
air
: Specific heat of air [=] J/Kg
o
C
D: Diffusivity [=] m
2
/s
d
h
: Hydraulic diameter of the packing (=4/) [=] m
G: Air flow rate [=] Kg/s
H
in
: Kg of water/Kg of dry air at the inlet
H
out
: Kg of water/Kg of dry air at the outlet
ave
sat , air , T
H : Air saturation humidity at
ave
air
T
ave
sat , wtr , T
H : Air saturation humidity at
ave
wtr
T
h: Heat transfer coefficient [=] W/m
2

K: Mass transfer coefficient [=] mol/m
2
s
K
g
: Mass transfer coefficient [=] mol/m
2
sbar
L: Water flow rate, [=] Kg/s
Q: Rate of heat transferred , [=] J/s
Q
sens
: Rate of sensible heat transferred [=] J/s
Q
lat
: Rate of latent heat transferred [=] J/s
Re
gas
: Gas Reynolds number :
h o
gas
air
gas
d
A G
45 cos
/
Re

=
Re
liq
: Liquid Reynolds number :
liq pack
liq liq
liq
a
u

sup ,
Re =
T
out,wtr
: Outlet temperature of water [=]
o
C
T
in,wtr
: Inlet Temperature of water [=]
o
C
T
out,air
: Outlet temperature of air [=]
o
C
T
in,air
: Inlet Temperature of air [=]
o
C

2
air , out air , in ave
air
T T
T
+
=

2
wtr , out wtr , in ave
wtr
T T
T
+
=
u
liq,sup
: Superficial liquid velocity [=] m/s
U: Heat transfer coefficient [=] W/m
2
K
z: Height of packed section [=] m

Greek Letters
: Specific area of the packing (=250) [=] m
-1

: Latent heat of water evaporation [=] J/Kg

liq/gas
: Liquid/Gas viscosity respectively [=] Kg/ms

liq/gas
: Liquid/Gas density respectively [=] Kg/m
3










Experimental Heat Transfer, Fluid Mechanics, and
Thermodynamics 2001, Proceedings p.p. 1695-1700.
G.P. Celata, P.Di Marco, A. Goulas and A. Mariani
2001 Edizioni ETS, Pisa. All rights reserved





REFERENCES
1. Fair J.R., Direct Contact Gas-Liquid Heat Exchange
for Energy Recovery, Trans. of ASME, Journal of
Solar Energy Engineering, vol. 112, (1990), pp. 216
222
2. Fair J.R., Designing DirectContact Coolers /
Condensers, Chem. Eng., Vol. 12, (1972), pp. 91
100, June
3. Fair J.R., Process Heat Transfer by Direct Fluid-Phase
Contact, AIChE Symp. Ser. No. 118, vol. 68, (1971)
4. Spigel L., Bomio P., Hunkeler R., Direct heat and mass
transfer in structured packings, Chem. Eng. & Proc.,
35, (1996), pp. 479 485
5. Huang Chen-Chia & Fair J.R., Direct Contact Gas-
Liquid Heat Transfer in Packed Column, Heat
Transfer Engineering, vol. 20, no 2, (1989), pp. 19 28
6. Bontozoglou V. & Karabelas A.J., Direct Contact
Steam Condensation with Simultaneous
Noncondensable Gas Absorption, AIChE J., vol. 41,
No. 2 (1995), pp. 241 250
7. Henriques de Brito M., von Stockar, A., Menendez
Bangerter, A., Bomio, P. and Laso, M., Effective
Mass-Transfer Area in a Pilot Plant Column Equipped
with Structured Packings with Ceramic Rings, Ind.
Eng. Chem. Res., vol 33 (1994), pp. 647-656
8. Karapantsios T.D., Kostoglou M. & Karabelas A.J.,
Direct Contact Condensation of Dilute Steam/Air
Mixtures on Wavy Falling Films, Chem. Eng. Comm.,
vols. 141 142, (1996), pp. 261 285
9. Fair J.R, & Bravo J.L., Distillation columns
containing structured packing, Chem Eng. Progr. , vol
86(1), (1990), pp. 19-29
10. Schpigel L., Meier W., Performance characteristics of
various types of Mellapak packings (productivity,
pressure differential, and deficiency), Chemical and
Petroleum Engineering, vol 30, No. 3-4, (1994), pp.118
125




2001, ExHFT-5, Thessaloniki, Greece
6